Saramago

Interesting that KJV translates the Hebrew as "field" in Gen 2:5 but NIV gives "earth" or "land". I don't know Hebrew but looking it up in an interlinear Hebrew-English format then searching online for the meaning of that word does suggest "field" may be closer.

But still. They HAVE been stitched together, because there was nothing else to do with them. What was the editor going to do, announce that they were different stories? Note the transition Genesis 2:1-5 (here from NIV, emphasis obviously added):In the Hebrew-English interlinear version, it sure looks like there is no question that these verbs are meant to convey finality. "Ceased" is the English word given several times in this part, in the translation I'm looking at. The message is, he's done. In the version I'm looking at, the literal English translation of Gen 2:3 is given as "he is making holy him that in-him he ceased from all the work of him which he created".

Genesis 2:4 uses the Jahwist name for God as does Genesis 2:5 - 3 (and beyond), rather than the Priestly name for God. Genesis 2:4 is either purely a bridge (editor thinking let's see what I can put here that sounds OK) or it's an opening to Genesis 2:5, in which case I take it to mean: "What follows is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Now no shrub had yet appeared...." Rather than it being ending to Genesis 1 through 2:3 before the transition to the second story starting in Genesis 2:5, in which case the meaning would have been "This has been the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...Now, new part of the story: No shrub had yet appeared...."

Full confession, I can't tell from the literal English in the Hebrew-English interlinear translation whether there's past or future implied; "when they were created" seems to literally be "in to be created of them" which looks future-ish, which would fit with my claim that it's an opening for Genesis 2:5, but I could be wrong.

manwithdream

In Gen 1, the animals were created for their kind, but maybe in Gen 2, they were created slightly differently as possible mates or helpers for Adam. If serpents had legs and could talk in Genesis, then maybe there were other differences too.

I don't see why Gen 1 can't describe the creation of animals and man and Gen 2 go into the details of how animals were created a second time as possible mates or helpers for Adam. It sounds weird that animals were offered as possible mates, but we assume they were the same animals that were created for their own kind and maybe they were not.

Kenneth Greifer

GakuseiDon

I like Rick Gervais' take on the punishment given to the snake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErGLS04lIAw

I know, that is weird! God starts making the beasts of the field and the birds and saying "Here you go, Adam!", while Adam is rolling his eyes and thinking, "Try again, God!"

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof

jgoodguy

This is discussed at http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#p/a/u/2/waV91LS0Atw

rhutchin

There is no reason to assume that a second account begins at 2:4. Although there are differing views about this, the account beginning at 1:1 seems to end at 2:7.

There may be a split between 2:4 and 2:5. 2:8 can be the beginning of a new account (but this could begin at 2:7) describing how God created a garden and placed the man there. From there to the end of the chapter are described the activities in the garden and all this would be on day 6.

In another view, the verses, 2:5-6, create perspective for the reader who would be unfamiliar with events of that time. They transition between the account of the creation (1:1-2:4) and details relating to Adam and the creation of Eve (2:8-25). NIV sets the verses off as if they were a parenthetical addition.

I think you have to make a case for the position that the second account begins at 2:5. Do you just want to make that an assumption from which you will build your argument? If so, your argument fails if the assumption fails.

Given that Davka has some expertise in the Hebrew language, perhaps he can shed some light on what is happening.

rhutchin

All that means is that Gen 1 is a summary and Gen 2 is an expansion giving more detail regarding the creation of man.

rhutchin

Very perceptive.

Except that we are dealing with older people (mentally if not physically even if their physical age appeared much more than actual) and instead of a gun, we might make it a delicious dessert that gave no appearance of being harmful.

rhutchin

Moses is credited with being the general editor of Genesis, and the addition of the language in 2:4 follows the use of similar language throughout Genesis to begin or end accounts of other events in history.

rhutchin

Gen 2:19 says, "out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." It is a statement of fact and the language does not tell when God did it only that He did it.

Gen 2:19-20 can be read as a parenthetical comment explaining 2:18. We are not required to read the verses as if they were describing a chronological sequence of events.

The "and" that we read in the KJV at the beginning of verses serves to separate statements of fact and implies nothing about those statements being in a chronological sequence.

schriverja

I'm happy with the assumption that the second account begins at 2:4 or 2:5. Here's a source to back it.

How do you account for the different personal used for God in chapters 1 and 2 if you assume that Moses was the author?